Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:54:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rohit Deshpande& Frederick E. Webster,Jr.

Organizational

Culture

and

Marketing:Defining

the

Research

Agenda

Contemporarywork on marketingmanagement is grounded implicitly in a structural functionalist or con-

tingency

which

empirical

tional

grounded

nizational

perspective

of organizational

derives

has

paradigms

from

and

culture. The authors surveythis emergingliterature on organiza-

conceptual framework, and then develop a research agenda in marketing

management, orga-

functioning.

recently

However,

the

field

of organizational

into theoretical

behavior

modeling

such

aperspective

developed

a majorthrust

management,

research

on organizational

it in a

culture,

integrate

inthefive cultural

cognition,

of comparative

contingency

organizational

symbolism,

and structural/psychodynamism.

\(WHEN Drucker (1954)first articulated themar-keting concept, he noted that marketing was not really a separate management function but rather the whole business as seen from the customer's pointof view. In other words,the marketingconceptdefinesa distinct organizationalculture,a fundamental shared set of beliefs and values that putthe customer in the center of thefirm's thinkingaboutstrategyandop-erations. Despite this centrality of organizational culture to marketingmanagementissues,there has been rela-tively little scholarly studyof its impact in a market- ingcontext. This lack of scrutinyperhapsreflects,as Ruekert and Walker (1987) suggest,the relatively greaterattentiongivento consumer than to organi-zational issues in marketing in general. For example,

that greaterattention be paidto organizational culture alongwith structural explanations for managerial ef-fectiveness. Additionally, heightened concern foris-sues of implementationin marketing strategy (Walker and Ruekert 1987) and the development of a customer

managementviews of organizational culturereflectamotivation to understand culture as a lever or tool to be used bymanagersto implement strategy andtodi-rect the course of their organizations moreeffectively, tomakecultureandstrategyconsistent with and sup-portiveofoneanother. As Smircich (1983a,p.346-

7) notes about these approaches, they tendtobe"op- timistic"and"messianic" (perhapsas a reflection of their structural functionalist nature)and to overlook the likelihood that multiplecultures,subcultures,and especiallycountercultures are competingto define for their members the nature of situations within organi-zationalboundaries.

Culture as a Metaphor

Three other provocative culture are

thropology

ganizational

waysof thinking about or-

theoretically grounded inan-

They describe

not as a variable but as a root metaphor for

the organization itself; cultureisnotsomething anor-

ganization

organizations aretobeunderstoodnotjust in

culture

rather than in sociology.

"has" but what it "is." In these perspec-

tives,

economicor material terms,but in terms of their ex-

pressive,

perspectives arecalled"cognitive,"

ideational, and symbolicaspects.The three

"symbolic," and

"

"structural/psychodynamic.

In the organizational cognition perspective onor-

culture,thetaskoftheresearcher is to whatthe"rules"arethatguidebehavior-

ganizational

understand

the shared cognitions,

the uniquewaysin which organization membersper-

ceive and

their world (Weick 1985). For ex-

this tradition have iden-

commonideational patternswithin American

organizationswhich theylabel as "entrepreneurial,"

tified

ample,

systems ofvaluesandbeliefs,

organize

researchers following

"scientific,"

and "humanistic" (Litterer and Young

1981).Shrivastava and Mitroff (1983)suggesta method

the"framesofreference" managersuse

for identifying

in assessing

ogous to the cognitive paradigm inmuchofconsumerbehavior research, this organizationalculture perspec-

tive focuses on the mind of the manager and viewsorganizations asknowledge systems.

In an organizational symbolism perspective, anor-

acceptability ofnewinformation.Anal-

ganization,

ings and

providesa backgroundagainstwhich organization

members

appropriate

behavior (Pondy

approach characteristically search for ways inwhichcananddo"socialize" new members to

Research on the creation,dissemination, and use of marketing knowledge in firms

Study

of

impactof organizational restructuring on marketingcognitions

shared

Researchon sources of

involving marketing

marketing/R&D

development process)

organizational conflicts

and other

departments (e.g.,

conflicts in new product

Research onthesocialization of new marketingrecruits

Impactofstrongmarketingsocialization on

creativity

and innovativeness

Study

of

importanceof organizational symbols in

sales transactions

Researchonthehistorical development of"market-

driven" firms as expression

of founders' wills

Research

l

and Methodology

Methodological ImplicationsCross-sectional surveyresearch

Cross-sectional surveyresearch

or ethnographic methods

or

Ethnographic phenomenological research

or

Ethnographic phenomenological research

Ethnographic or historical research

dardization and Nestle believingin local market ad- aptation-yetbothareextremelysuccessful consumer goodsmarketers. Thoughseveralthoughtfulconceptualarticles have beenwrittenon the relevance of national culture to globalization (Levitt 1983), fewempirical studieshaveexamined the issue. An importantexceptionis the re- cent work of Gatignon and Anderson (1987) whousetransaction cost analysis to explain the extent of con- trolexertedbymultinational corporationsover their foreignsubsidiaries. Theyfind that American mul- tinationalsgenerallytakelower control levels in countrieswhereagreater"sociocultural distance" is

perceived(i.e.,whereAmericanexecutives feel un- comfortable with the values and operatingmethods in a host country). Clearlythe success of anyinternational marketingstrategydependsnot onlyon the extent of its con- formityto customer cultural norms but also on the conformitywith the values and beliefs of employeesinvarioushostcountries,as Hofstede's (1980)land- marksurveyofthework-related values of 116,000respondentsin 40 countries suggestsin a broader management context. Forexample, aremarketing managersin an East Asian subsidiaryof a British par-entcompanymoreor lesslikelythan their East Af-

Organizational

Cultureand Marketing/ 9

This content downloaded from 130.126.32.13 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:54:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions